Among the Reformed, the only person I have yet found to affirm spiritual matter in angels is Samuel Willard. This position pretty much died out after Scotus (the reason for this being that the Franciscans felt no need to defend it after Scotus proposed haecceity as the principle of individuation). Although I personally think spiritual matter ought to be rejected, the argument for me is focused on showing Thomas’s own assumptions not to allow his position rather than focusing on whether there is spiritual matter as such. See also Aristotle and the Ontology of St Bonaventure pg. 98-100 for an argument from Bonaventure that undercuts Thomas’s own assumptions):
They are spiritual natures or substances. They are natures, that is, they have both matter and form; form they have, because they are essentially distinguished each from other: Gabriel is not another angel. And to think them immaterial is absurd; for what serves the form for? Besides they have a common kind, Heb. 2:16, . . . the nature of angels . . . , which community flows from hence. They are capable of torment; they are not a mere act, as God is, but have a protention; they are quantity, and not infinite; though they can contract and dilate themselves, yet they are limited to place, and have local motion, which is not instantaneous, but successive, Dan. 9:21. But they are spiritual, and therefore incorporeal; they have the finest matter; our senses cannot perceive them; Luke 24:39, . . . a spirit hath not flesh and bones . . . If ever they become visible, it is by assuming a body, for the time, without any personal union. And being spirits, they are persons, inasmuch as they are individual substances of a rational nature, or causes by counsel, subsisting of themselves, and hence are capable of happiness or misery.
Comments